One Cap Two Cap Red Cap Blue Cap! Risk Meta Settings

[@anoldlady8]

Maybe it's because I'm still waking up, but the title made me giggle

[@lucasfabisiak9586]

In ranked, if someone misses two turns, they should be forced to forfeit (taking the lowest available placement), with no chance of returning. To make eliminating the player worthwhile, a bot should take over, but it should not auto trade until it's on five cards.

[@FreePete]

Of course. This is the only sane design

[@jordanpower8393]

The decision to lay into red at 34:55 was brilliant. Hitting the strongest player from a position of weakness usually guarantees death but after getting broken a single time he basically gives up. As if holding those borders was the entire point of his game.

[@aaronbixby9703]

Hi, Pete. Reinstalled risk, and after 8-9 Risk meta settings, I've only gotten 1rst and 2nd, thanks to your videos. Big fan

[@FreePete]

Nice! That's what its all about man

[@noahelzas1819]

Pete, I'm not an expert on bot behaviour but I'm pretty sure that the reason that the bot didn't break your Italy was due to the fact that there was only one troop on it. This causes the bot to see it as a normal territory since the fog of war prevents it from figuring out that you have the territory, therefore it is less incline to attack it. if there was a choice between one troop protecting a full bonus and a simple 8 stack, the bot will attack the 8 stack. In theory, stacking on a territory tells the algorithm of the bot that you want to either attack or defend, meaning that it will try to break.

[@musaxhogas]

Nah, AI in most games, if not all games, doesnt play by the same rules as a player does. In this case fog of war, it just doesnt have it.

[@Kriszzzful]

Bots see through the fog of war and know exactly when they break

[@FreePete]

Bot have different personalities and prioritize different things. Not guarding with stacks and leaving 1s on your border does work against some bot types.

[@LewisCampbellTech]

27:20 As I understand it, SMG are "fixing network code". As a computer programmer, I can tell you this translates to your language as "they're fucked" . Most likely the network code they have now the just made up as they want along, which is not the way to do things - it's a specialized skillset within computer programming and requires a high level of upfront planning. Basically, I doubt they're able to make any gameplay changes until they're done doing this. Not unwilling, but actually unable. My guess is also that you'll see a burst of these changes when they have the new release. All speculation, as I don't work there, but I've been doing this for years, and I can guess the dynamics of the thing.

[@chesschicken1698]

the Sardinia/Denmark blizzard combo makes this an interesting map

[@XSquibX]

Just out of curiosity, in your logic, why would a 1 troop territory like Morocco be ruled out for your cap? It would defend the bottom half of the board relatively nicely and it couldn't be smashed turn one easily since the only 2 near it is a player directly after you. What do you see that I don't?

[@FreePete]

Great question. The unofficial fourth rule is don't cap on a 1 in the later seats (4th - 6th position) because 4 caps can be easily rolled turn 1. This is a strike against Morocco here. White and magenta see our cap. White goes after us which means they can't roll us turn 1 so that's good. Maybe magenta doesn't shoot our cap and maybe nobody else snags it oppotunitistically before our turn. Ok so then what. We have an ok cap long term that guards either Spain (likely someone is in Gascony) or Africa but then we have to take Africa over multiple turns at which time we will be unable to defend it if anyone comes at us. On this board I think Morocco is a terrible choice and that's why I didn't bother mentioning it or considering it at all.

[@nathanperish5983]

Pete, can you explain the logic behind taking the pink cap so early? It seems odd to expend a larger number of troops rolling the cap for a +2 than to take the +4. Great game.

[@NewAge1138]

Possibly to help prevent bot outs to begin with. Penalize players for botting out by locking out ranked flames for a nominal timer, say 30 mins or a tiered timer. 10m to 30m to 60m etc. This could incentive players to actually play from behind rather than rage quitting. But agreed once they quit they shouldn't be allowed back in after a round or two. I've had moments where my internet was shit. I did the best I could to finish my current game then I just didn't play further until I had more reliable internet. To me that's the appropriate response to a situation where actual connectivity is an issue.

[@kanarie78]

just got to home from my finals. and i see mister pete. nice.

[@steveblock3882]

That was really well played against red 👏 nice read

[@markking8532]

Only just started to watch but what a blind open! No sight on caps or most of the west

[@ZackRahmoun]

Pete casually letting the censorship away

[@robcat6377]

i see only one honest way to handle disconnect. 3 minute ghost, if the player doesn't reconnect in that time, auto surrender.

[@FreePete]

Something has to be done

[@oilfreak710]

I think if they start penalizing players for botting out and quiting matches (like i think valorant does) and put a timer on that account to when they can start another match would kill 2 birds with one stone.

[@FreePete]

For sure. But first they would have to care to do so.

[@charlessapp1835]

How about a bot ONLY sets on 5? This way, they become great kill targets and increases the chances that they die first.

[@meatmissile420]

the best name of a youtube video

[@xGodWontSaveUx]

White at the end 😮

[@nikolaus0610]

I'm a beginner at playing risk, just a few times a week for maybe 2 weeks since I installed that game. I botted one time out because I was totally being destroyed from two sides with a cap in the middle of the board. So I was unable to hold just a tiny piece of a bonus. I just raged and botted. 15min later came back to the game and found out that I was still alive and with a better outcome than before due to a expert bot. Just another perfect example why the system is just bad

[@larskoppens446]

How did red throw this game away

[@VictoryNotVengeance]

He never “had” it, playing fixed world dom in a prog caps setting….

[@FreePete]

haha

[@larskoppens446]

@@VictoryNotVengeance true, but he had potential to 'have' it. He just wasn't good enough

[@VictoryNotVengeance]

@ I’m surprised he did have 40-ish on his cap when Pete went to have a looky-loo 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@notaname8385]

Splorient 🎉

[@hendrik6084]

hi Peeeeete!

[@jaredunderwood978]

GG

[@BrewshkiMTG]

Spoiler block!

[@gutenbird]

🎉

[@Elixur]

19:45 honestly pete... L take IMO, its very possible and common that players dc, especially considering the game itself has server issues often. My favorite game of all time was a game that i lost connection turn 2, and had to restart my router, and got back in the game on turn 16, my bot had no cap, nor bonuses, but the players were just too bad to kill the bot. and i grinded my way back into the game. It wasnt my fault that the players didnt punish the bot, but why would SMG punish me for something out of my control? Lets just start encouraging and incentivizing people to punish bots, instead of what the current strategy is, which is ignore the bot and wait it out, which is the core of the problem. Its not fair to punish players that are playing legit because of bad game design

[@FreePete]

🤣🤣🤣 just to be clear you are advocating FOR a player who disconnected turn 1 to return to a ranked game after 19 minutes and be able to play to win? Just because you were able to return to a game once you're suggesting everyone else should suffer from a terrible system? Is this actually the position you're taking or am I misunderstanding.

[@Elixur]

@@FreePete Im saying that id rather allow scumbags to get away with things once and a while instead of disallowing legit players who just had a connection issue to possibly come back and win. I understand that its the meta strategy, but you (along with me, and every other gm player in the game) often actively choose to allow bots to exist and get large instead of punishing them while they are bots, this is the problem that needs to be addressed, incentivize punishing the bots so this isnt even a factor.

[@Elixur]

maybe this makes more sense: The problem isnt that people can come back after botting, its that its often beneficial to bot

[@Kriszzzful]

@@Elixur it's not legit play if a bot played half the game for you. Every game punishes people who disconnect, why should risk be different? I don't think you are making a good point here

[@thenonsequitur]

If you lost connection game 2 and then a bot played to turn 16 then you reconnected, you've effectively cheated. Good game design should not reward cheating.

[@tonylee997]

You are crying and crying about the bot situation over and over again and they literally have a solution and it’s to play neutral bot all the time ,,,,,I’ve commented this on yours and Kyle’s multiple times you always here over and over about bots put neutral and be done with it

[@FreePete]

If you've repeated yourself and I haven't responded here's my response: Neutral bot and automated bot are different in two particular ways: Neutral bot not taking cards slows down the trading sequence and changes the tempo of when kills are viable to the advantage of early snowballs, which is luck based and positional. Fine if you're lucky, rough if you're not. Second people not readying up cause the neutral bot to act as pseudo blizzards and I do not want to play with pseudo blizzards. This is a loophole that can be closed by fixing the lobby design and it fixing the neutral bot. Now you don't have to post your comment again if you have felt unheard and I can go back to advocating for better design